Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley is flanked by Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, left, and Micky Hammon, R-Decatur, right, as he speaks before signing into law what critics and supporters are calling the strongest bill in the nation cracking down on illegal immigration, on Thursday June 9, 2011 at the state Capitol in Montgomery, Ala. (AP Photo/Montgomery Advertiser, Mickey Welsh)

MONTGOMERY, Alabama -- The lawmakers behind Alabama’s stringent immigration law said the debate over states’ roles in immigration policy is not over despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Alabama’s latest appeal.

“I am disappointed but am not surprised,” Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, said of the court’s decision.

Beason said he thought the court’s decision was, “not the end of the argument.”

“I still think it’s well within the historical powers, the sovereign powers, of the states to try to do the things that we are doing,” Beason said.

“The reason we have this problem is the federal government will not do its job,” Beason said.

House Majority Leader Micky Hammon, R-Decatur, said "the issue is not going away any time soon and I agree with Attorney General Strange that the Supreme Court’s actions today are only delaying the inevitable."

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Luther Strange said with similar litigation arising in other states that hopefully the court would agree to revisit the issue soon.

"I hope that the Supreme Court will stop kicking the can down the road and weigh in on this issue of utmost importance to not only Alabamians but the country as well," Hammon said.

Hammon noted key parts of Alabama's law remained intact. He said the "decision today has little effect on law enforcement’s ability to carry out the directives of our law."

The courts have blocked parts of Alabama’s law but left in place others, including the so-called "reasonable suspicion" clause.

The law directs law enforcement officers during traffic stops, detentions and arrests to verify a person's immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is unlawfully present in the United States.

Opponents of Alabama's law said the court's decision was anticipated and said it is a signal that Alabama should move on from this issue.

The high court's refusal to hear the appeal was not surprising after the court in 2012 struck down much of Arizona's far-reaching immigration law, said Justin Cox, a staff attorney with the Immigrants' Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"It also signals that these issues have largely been settled now because of Arizona and it's time to move on which is what we've been encouraging Alabama and other states to do. In fact, it's what the rest of the country is trying to do with comprehensive immigration reform," Cox said.

"It's clear that states have an extremely small role to play in immigration enforcement. It's been clear since the Arizona decision," Cox said.

“The Supreme Court has rightly struck another nail in the coffin of laws that attempt to sanction racial profiling,” said Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center.

"The high court invalidated Arizona's immigration law last year, stating unequivocally that immigration is a federal issue and states may not create their own enforcement schemes. That is why the lower courts already blocked Alabama's law," Brooke said.

Alabama Solicitor General John C. Neiman, Jr, of the attorney general's office, disagreed with Brooke that the court has said immigration was strictly a federal issue.

"The Supreme Court and the 11th Circuit in our case upheld several provisions of these laws," Neiman said.

A spokeswoman for Strange said the office was disappointed in the court's decision not to hear Alabama's latest appeal.

"We are disappointed that the Court decided not to consider this case, over Justice Scalia's dissent. Many other states are facing similar litigation, and the lower court in our case was the first federal court of appeals to consider this particular issue," spokeswoman Joy Patterson said.

"Other cases raising the issue from other states are likely to appear at the Supreme Court in the future. Hopefully Justice Scalia's vote indicates that once those additional courts have weighed in, the Supreme Court will be willing to grant review," Patterson said.

What happens now?

The case will now go back down to the trial court. Some issues will require further litigation, while other issues will not, Patterson said.

"The court will come up with a plan for dealing with the remaining issues," Neiman said.

The litigation is likely far from over.

Opponents of the law have long suggested they will eventually file a challenge to the reasonable suspicion provision.